Trump envoys to meet Putin over Ukraine peace deal

Next week, Chinese President Xi Jinping, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to meet informally during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in Shenzhen. The meeting is being dubbed a "historic" occasion, given that it will be the first trilateral encounter between the three leaders, and some have drawn comparisons to the 1945 Yalta conference, which saw the "big three" leaders discuss the post-war shape of Europe.

However, those who fear a second Yalta are overstating the potential consequences. While history can serve as a guide, the current geopolitical climate is markedly different. The US, China and Russia, while powerful, are part of a more multipolar world where smaller nations and international associations can assert influence. The planned meeting will take place within the context of the Apec gathering, which includes 21 member states, suggesting a more collaborative atmosphere.

While great powers have historically sought to exert influence over their neighbors, there is no evidence to suggest that the current US or Russian presidents aim to establish satellite states in the manner of Joseph Stalin. Furthermore, China has consistently emphasized its commitment to peaceful development and has refrained from engaging in military conflicts since 1979.

The potential for a trilateral nuclear disarmament negotiation is limited, as China has expressed its unwillingness to participate at this stage, and Germany's president has emphasized the European nature of the Ukraine conflict. Rather than focusing on the potential negative outcomes, it is more productive to consider the possible positive outcomes of the meeting, such as collaboration in AI governance or efforts to end conflicts like the one with Iran.

Experts suggest that the leaders could facilitate Track 1.5 or Track 2 dialogues involving scholars, officials and civil society actors, which could greatly enhance mutual understanding. While the meeting's likelihood remains uncertain, given Beijing's insistence on prepared statements and predetermined outcomes, and Washington's preference for a more flexible format, any outcome, even a symbolic one, would be historic and noteworthy.

This comparison to a pivotal moment in history should not be overstated, as the world is not in 1945, and the shaping of a continent's fate is not at stake in Shenzhen next week.